A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

Why? If almost half of one group can't give an acceptable answer to a fundamental question, I can't fault a self-selected out-group for playing 50/50 odds by practicing avoidance. The issue isn't Adams; the issue is that such a question can result in such a response. That's what's deeply disturbing.

Just a reminder: I'm probably in the 99th percentile for "tolerance" and have no masters to please, so I know I'm an outlier on not sending socially appropriate signals. I'm perfectly comfortable talking about the elephant.

 

[dimsum]

His mistake was advocating segregation. As to the survey question, I doubt many people know of its origins, and there's not really any way to answer an "It's OK to be white/black/male/female/gay/straight" question without choosing a side which marks you as either tolerant/indifferent/accepting, or intolerant.

Yes there is. There was a "not sure" option as well.

Why? If almost half of one group can't give an acceptable answer to a fundamental question, I can't fault a self-selected out-group for playing 50/50 odds by practicing avoidance.

Where is this "almost half" you're talking about? 26% said disagree, and the rest (so 27%) weren't sure. "I'm not sure" is an acceptable answer.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Uh-huh. I can totally understand how people could be "not sure" about a question with such a strong binary characteristic. "I'm not sure its OK to be [insert characteristic here]."

 

[dimsum]

Uh-huh. I can totally understand how people could be "not sure" about a question with such a strong binary characteristic. "I'm not sure its OK to be [insert characteristic here]."

If I were asked, I would pick "not sure". Why? Because I would ask in return, "Do you mean the phrase itself, or the meaning co-opted by the far right?"

The phrase itself: Sure. It's OK to be white. Same as it's OK to be whatever skin colour.
The connotation: No, I am not fine with that. Why? Because a usage of that phrase has been co-opted by the far right.

 

[brihard]

Why? If almost half of one group can't give an acceptable answer to a fundamental question, I can't fault a self-selected out-group for playing 50/50 odds by practicing avoidance. The issue isn't Adams; the issue is that such a question can result in such a response. That's what's deeply disturbing.

Just a reminder: I'm probably in the 99th percentile for "tolerance" and have no masters to please, so I know I'm an outlier on not sending socially appropriate signals. I'm perfectly comfortable talking about the elephant.

You're dancing around what Adams did. He literally advocated that white people should stay away from black people. He advocated racial segregation. Among all decent circles, he should be done now, and he did it to himself.

 

[GR66]

If I were asked, I would pick "not sure". Why? Because I would ask in return, "Do you mean the phrase itself, or the meaning co-opted by the far right?"

The phrase itself: Sure. It's OK to be white. Same as it's OK to be whatever skin colour.
The connotation: No, I am not fine with that. Why? Because a usage of that phrase has been co-opted by the far right.

How do you even ask a question about a physical characteristic which is completely outside your ability to control? Is it OK to have two feet? Is it OK to have a nose? Frankly I think my answer to the surveyor would be "that's a stupid f-ing question. goodbye"

 

[Brad Sallows]

You're dancing around what Adams did. He literally advocated that white people should stay away from black people. He advocated racial segregation. Among all decent circles, he should be done now, and he did it to himself.

Sure. And racial segregation occurs whenever anyone advocates separation by race, "X-only" spaces included. How bad would a problem have to be before you would agree to segregation? 100%?

I fully realize what he said is out-of-bounds to some people. I also think their bounds are too narrow, and inconsistent. This is a hard issue and has to be confronted head-on. Apply Alinsky's "rule" about making people live by their own rules. The response by some to Adams is basically that hateful people ought be avoided/shunned/exiled. Or, to rephrase: the group of correctly-thinking-people should stay away from the group of Adams-and-all-who-agree-with-him ("X" people should stay away from "Y" people.) That must apply universally among people who believe it, or it's not a principle; it's just a social/political convenience. If "hateful" includes not agreeing straight up that "it's OK to be [some immutable characteristic]", then those people also ought be "stayed away from". The critics validate Adams.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes there is. There was a "not sure" option as well.


Where is this "almost half" you're talking about? 26% said disagree, and the rest (so 27%) weren't sure. "I'm not sure" is an acceptable answer.

"I'm not sure" isn't an acceptable answer. If you're not sure, you reveal that you entertain the possibility that the statement is untrue.

[Add: as I wrote, I doubt most people are aware of the provocative usage of the phrase. Only a small percentage of the population is actually deeply engaged in social/political issues, and of that, only a fraction would know the phrase. If that knowledge were stated as part of the question, circumstances would be different.]

 

[brihard]

I fully realize what he said

What he said was that white people should “just get the hell away from black people”, that they should avoid people, that it “makes no sense to help Black Americans if you’re white”, among other pets of his racist rant.

is out-of-bounds to some people. I also think their bounds are too narrow, and inconsistent.

If you think our boundaries that exclude that kind of explicitly racist crap are ‘too narrow’, you’re really just raising concerns about your own values and ethics, but you do you. I’ll allow for the possibility that somehow you’ve missed just what he actually said (and there were several things), and that after mulling it a bit further, you may reconsider leaping to his defense and offering apologetics for his comments.

 

[dimsum]

"I'm not sure" isn't an acceptable answer. If you're not sure, you reveal that you entertain the possibility that the statement is untrue.

[Add: as I wrote, I doubt most people are aware of the provocative usage of the phrase. Only a small percentage of the population is actually deeply engaged in social/political issues, and of that, only a fraction would know the phrase. If that knowledge were stated as part of the question, circumstances would be different.]

Oh boy. I thought it was polled in 2017 for some reason.

I was wrong - it was polled last Wednesday.

Interesting how Adams didn't quote the second part of the poll, where a much higher majority of Black Americans also agreed that "Black people can be racist too".

 

[brihard]

Oh boy. I thought it was polled in 2017 for some reason.

I was wrong - it was polled last Wednesday.

Interesting how Adams didn't quote the second part of the poll, where a much higher majority of Black Americans also agreed that "Black people can be racist too".

Well of course he didn't quote that. He's not engaging in good faith or as an honest broker here. He's simply decided he's OK with being a bigot out loud now instead of keeping it quiet. It's not like he's suddenly developed these views in the year 2023.

 

[mariomike]

Is that how Scott Adams wants his legacy remembered?

Even George Wallace had enough sense to rehabilitate his reputation, somewhat, while there was still time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/09/05/the-rehabilitation-of-george-wallace/35ce99ee-55fc-4515-8c9b-2cc7c8a8e8fb/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1628601257773654016/pu/vid/640x360/WNMgHuim0enNfU3N.mp4?tag=14

 

[Brad Sallows]

What he said was that white people should “just get the hell away from black people”, that they should avoid people, that it “makes no sense to help Black Americans if you’re white”, among other pets of his racist rant.



If you think our boundaries that exclude that kind of explicitly racist crap are ‘too narrow’, you’re really just raising concerns about your own values and ethics, but you do you. I’ll allow for the possibility that somehow you’ve missed just what he actually said (and there were several things), and that after mulling it a bit further, you may reconsider leaping to his defense and offering apologetics for his comments.

What he said was subject to the outcome of the survey. If "X", then "Y". The "X" part matters. I wouldn't care if 100% of people expressed a disagreeable sentiment; I'm not in the habit of boycotting groups or even individuals. If 50% is enough for Adams, that's his threshold and it's OK to express his opinion and advice. Those for whom no amount of disagreeability matters shouldn't exclude anyone, including Adams. For the remainder, all that's left to find is where above Adams's 50% and below 100% they lie. They may choose their numbers.

My ethics and values are fine. Everyone who thinks shunning is appropriate for people who fail a test of agreeability is subject to the same principle (to be consistent). Those failing to answer the question ("It's OK to be...") in the affirmative are subject to the same consequences - to be ignored, shunned, avoided, not helped, however it is phrased. The only path out is to stop playing the moral advantage game.

 

[brihard]

What he said was subject to the outcome of the survey. If "X", then "Y". The "X" part matters. I wouldn't care if 100% of people expressed a disagreeable sentiment; I'm not in the habit of boycotting groups or even individuals. If 50% is enough for Adams, that's his threshold and it's OK to express his opinion and advice. Those for whom no amount of disagreeability matters shouldn't exclude anyone, including Adams. For the remainder, all that's left to find is where above Adams's 50% and below 100% they lie. They may choose their numbers.

My ethics and values are fine. Everyone who thinks shunning is appropriate for people who fail a test of agreeability is subject to the same principle (to be consistent). Those failing to answer the question ("It's OK to be...") in the affirmative are subject to the same consequences - to be ignored, shunned, avoided, not helped, however it is phrased. The only path out is to stop playing the moral advantage game.

What he said is what he said. There are statements one can make that are not excused or mitigated by context. If you’re somehow forcing a way to see his statements as somehow defensible or justifiable, well, that’s a choice on your part.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Of course his statement is defensible. The underlying premise is that if people don't like you, you might as well avoid them. There's nothing objectionable in that. But he put a probability on it, saying that if there's a 50/50 chance of having to deal with someone who doesn't like you, you should avoid all of them. That's profiling, and that's what in some cases is objectionable. It's easy to sit in moral judgement when he's advocating punishing half of a group for the sins of the other half; it's even easier if you take the view that the "undecideds" don't count and the probability is closer to 20% or 25%. It does raise the discomforting (I hope) question of what number is high enough. He's put right out in the open one of those things that people do but mostly pretend doesn't exist (profiling). It's like vigilantism - a problem for which the causes are difficult to solve, so the work-around is to suppress the symptoms by coming down hard on the people exhibiting them.

 

[KevinB]

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wish. Getting along only works if all the parties involved agree to do so.

Meanwhile, let he who never profiles cast the first stone.

 

[KevinB]

I wish. Getting along only works if all the parties involved agree to do so.

Meanwhile, let he who never profiles cast the first stone.

It also helps if some don’t fan flames…

 

[Brad Sallows]

He is not the first person to express those sentiments, and, no, it isn't just "white supremacists". Obviously few speak out, because they knew - even before this - what was likely to happen. But they cannot be prevented from talking about the issue discreetly and acting on their judgement.

If no-one fans flames, nothing gets fixed, and black people remain permanently disadvantaged from the increasing numbers of people who "quietly quit" them. What people resent Adams for advocating happens anyways, but immeasurably. As to factors, there are more at work than just a throwaway survey. I'm confident the situation isn't helped by the open advocacy of activists in the educational institutions who assign people to racial buckets and then insist that some should feel aggrieved and others guilty.